This is not just an attacking game

[Horsepower]

While I’m not happy about parts of this rebalancing, I did feel it was to easy to 5 star big bases. The main culprit there were the EA’s. Every Tom, Dick and Harry were five starring simply by deploying numerous EA’s. A rebalancing was definitely needed although I think BHG took it to far. Would have preferred to see them downgrade or totally eliminate the EA’s.
With that said, I’ve noticed many saying this is an attack game. I totally disagree. As a defense player I feel defensive players deserve a little more credit then that. Many defensive players must constantly design unique defensive strategies to stop skilled attackers. On the other end defensive players must also be good attackers to gain stars.
Your war teams will not win wars without strong defenders who can also use attack skills to contribute to a win. I see so many good attackers who have poorly built, undeveloped war bases. In a way, a good defensive player is a more well rounded team member who can switch hit on bought sides. For me, that has always been my goal.

So my opinion is this is definitely not an attack game. It’s a war game where a player’s skills are developed in many areas.

 

[KniferX]

I disagree. You're talking about unique defensive strategies, defense skill.. all of that is invalidated by the fact that I, a noob at base layout (because I gave up as I realised this) can copy one of the bases of the poll of 5-6 of them and be 95-100% as effective as you are. Even more if you experiment with a worse layout. 5 box layout or gaps in walls layout to abuse attacker AI, and some FC layouts, and that's it. That's how an old game works, people find the best layouts and they are shared around as years go by. Everyone has the same defense buildings and lack of control over what their defense buildings do (unlike attack as this IS an attacking game) so defense comes up to about the same layouts.

 

[pckrn]

i like to be creative and unique and i dont copy anyones troop composition or base layout. i have created a few extremely deceptive and effective layouts and i am quite pleased with this defensive aspect of the game.

but if i had to lable it, its an attacking game. i would recommend anyone to upgrade their armoury before their catapult, barracks before redoubt, airfield before bunker.

 

[Alexey]

In our current WW the enemy has three identical bases, simply copy-paste layouts. And I can say even more - after the rebalance if you have high enough level you don’t need any special layout at all - no matter how you place your buildings people will loose on it anyway.
Again, in our current WW in order to make 5 stars on my rushed CWA no-coalitions-no-troops-in-stronghold base the player used three attack coalitions, HTs and 4 EA cards. And that was a skilled player...

 

[Cannibals]

And where did those best layouts originate?

 

[Cannibals]

I agree. For example, my maxed offense Iron Age account can no longer 5* a mid-level classical account with no walls unless I pull in alliance troops. There are simply too many hitpoints on the field to clear it before the timer runs out.

 

[Radzeer]

Hey, Dradis, greetings!
Im sorry to contradict here, but this is an attacking game. As said before by by KniferX the unskilled defender can copy the layout of a teammate or opponent, and there is not much you can do about it.... Then on looting resources for the upgrades doesn’t require much skill either... I’m sure, that you met dosens of players who just do upgrades, but are totally unable to lodge a decent attack...
We all know how many different resource hacks were/are available, so an upgraded base doesn’t mean, that the owner can play the game...

The only thing that can differentiate a good player from an average one is the attacking ability... So whatever Nexon now tries to convince us (attacking is not everything), it just shows how incompetent they are with their own product... I’m sure all these changes are done by the Nexon team, while the original BHG team has left the ship long ago.... That is why we are sitting here and discussing the inevitable fact... Nexon has lost interest making a game, they see the game as a tool to get the gamers’ money, only.

 

[Krieg]

I agree with Dradis. This is a strategy game. And strategy includes a lot of aspects. Starting with what you upgrade on your base. Some players invest on defense. Others go for offense. The investment on defense should be rewarded. Not as sexy as new troops, but very important for the team. Try to go to war only with light offensive bases and you will find out. So, is not like “any noob can copy a design”. You need to have the tools.
The rebalance reinforced the strategic aspects of WW. Now, the only plan is not “let’s flatter their bases faster than them will flat ours”. You need to figure the bases that can be five starred. And the ones where you go for 2 of 3 stars. You need a better assignment of players. And the roles can change. A defense player may be the one who gets 5 stars. A skilled attacker may win the war with a great 3 star hit on a powerful base.
i know that isn’t fun to players who used to got 10 stars every war. But the skilled players will manage to still decisive to their teams.
i don’t agree with all the changes and feel that MP became excessively expensive in terms of troops training. But I like the idea of the game changing and make us adapt. And I love the idea of defense being rewarded. ​​​​​​

 

[Krieg]

An Iron Age account shouldn’t 5 star a classical one. The fact that this was possible shows that the game was unbalanced.

 

[yemen]

The difference is that a defensive base takes a LOT of time and money to build. FAR more than offense, by maybe a factor of 5-10. So longer term / richer players will almost always be much better defenders. That is seriously discouraging to the new players they need to keep bringing into the game if it is going to survive.

It would matter less if matchmaking were better. But it never has been good, and recently seems worse. So most wars will come down to who has the most of those only 2 or 3 star bases. A small mismatch becomes a much bigger deal, and sandbagging is rewarded to a greater degree.

Plus MP is expensive and slow as you noted. It doesn't seem like a well balanced change.

 

[Quagmire]

I've maxed my Offence for CWA. What else is there now to do while I wait for the next Age to arrive? Defence, then Economic. I'm guessing it's the battles (MP & war) we enjoy. Not the 2 1/2 hour wait while Fighters retrain, or the 13-day upgrades to Factory troops. And certainly not the 15-30 minutes spent at the start of each day medal dropping. Nexon wanted to reduce the number of 5* attacks. They've ended up reducing the TOTAL number of attacks.

 

[sileepuppee]

Agree with yemen and I don't even want to say "generally" as it's more apparent but those with the highest defensive bases are the people that are spending the most money on the game. Offense can be upgraded much more quickly than defense and really those that rush to do offense first are the ones that spend less (Or in my case, zero) money on the game. In many wars, we go up against a lot of alliances that have very high level defenses but they don't know how to attack so ultimately they're just one sided players. I don't think the rebalance has really switched up the roles. People that were good at attacking will find a way to adapt though obviously it will be tough. I started using betrayal again because of the overpowered HT's and that's helped me out quite a bit. That first attack after the rebalances I only got 2 stars but I adjusted and am back to 5 stars. Only difference is I cant really use def coals anymore. But those still newer to the game or had a hard time are now in a worse spot.

The thing about defense being rewarded is that the game is yet again really rewarding those that spend the most money on the game (Or hackers so hooray for them). Those crazy high level bases will never be raided again in MP and yes they've become effective again because of the rebalance. While I only care about war these days, it is all about the matchups so however you feel about defense/offense, it doesn't matter if you get don't matched up nicely. If your matchup has you going up against sand bags and maxed CWA bases, you wouldn't say that the they're being rewarded. It's an interesting adjustment for sure but my lower level alliances wouldn't say either that they're being rewarded. If you were a high level player before the rebalance than you have the edge for sure.

 

[forgetthis]

I'm still stunned how players see this as anything other than the cash grab it is.

If Nexon wanted a purely defensive strategy to be a viable one, they would have raised the output of farms, caravans, and oil wells. At that point, it might become viable to run a purely defensive strategy. Absent that, in order to advance, attacking is still strictly necessary - which is how Nexon wants it.

If Nexon were interested in making the game better, it's quite a coincidence that all of their major recent initiatives all generate more failed attacks( which means more cash for them). Learning new troop combos means more failed attacks. Stumbling across hidden museum artifacts (getting buffed by the current event) that cannot be scouted means more failed attacks. Nerfing of common strategies means people need to invest in other strategies, which means more resources, which means more attacks. Needing to invest in neglected defenses means needing more resources, and more attacks. Failed attacks will generate $$$ as people pay to retrain their troops to keep playing. Upgrades take forever, and will also generate crowns for them.

Excluding the few piddly resource training cost decreases, there is NOTHING Nexon has included in the past few months that doesn't generate more revenue for them. Quite a happy coincidence for
Nexon that all the needed game changes happen to make them money, and that they don't need to spend any of the expected revenue gains on other changes.

(Oh, and in case you're wondering about drawing out the rebalance roll-out: it allows them to have their development team spend little time on development for Dominations. 95% of the rebalance fixes are parameter changes, which take little to no effort, but odds are really good that they'll call this their major release and delay any real work on the game. Yet another way Nexon is lining their pockets.)

 

[KniferX]

People who bothered around the base layout system and thought them out.
Any person can still pick them up and have the same effectiveness as the person who made those bases.
Your point?

 

[KniferX]

But Krieg, is waiting for timers on your defensive buildings gameplay? Do you get better and more skilled at waiting for timers?
And even if you are for example AA with IA or GA defenses, it is still best for you to copy the best layout even with your weaker buildings.
That's what I mean same effectiveness, you do not have any active control to make your defense better (like for example attack where you can become better at deploying troops, planes, tactics, learning the nuances of enemy bases, you can't just copy a troop composition and have the same effectiveness as a good player). No skill will help make your defense better, only waiting for timers (being lucky to find the game early enough or paying).

That's why this is an attacking game, the most active gameplay is there.

 

[Krieg]

Lots of people saying that higher defenses are for “rich players”. Partially true. If you don’t rush trough ages, you can have heavy Industrial, Global or Atomic defense without been a spender. But yes, most defense players invested money and/or time to build them. So, you are accusing a company of rewarding who invested more on its products. May be shocking, but the game is a business.
A max base should be hard to five star at any age. And to do it should be an achievement for the attacker, not something granted. I still getting my regular five stars at war, attacking the same kind of base I used to attack. But I had to change my approach.

 

[yemen]

Krieg - no free players are much above a 260, if that, regardless of how early they started. And that is about the point where these changes have made bases impenetrable without premium cards. You can have heavy global defenses, but with two attacks per war a higher level player with their second attack will crush you.

They may want to reward their spenders, but you guys will get bored when the rest leave. They are either not worried about long term sustainability, or know what is happening and don't care.

NO ONE is 5*ing maxed CWA bases anymore. Not with 3D and loaded SHs, and for the most part it isn't even close unless they are paying to do it. That is a long way from "it should be an achievement". At this point, it is a highly priced miracle.

 

[Vixen]

It was an attack game not so long ago... where low war weight with cwa attacking strength was valued. This was to compensate the big whale bases like yours and those in our alliance. So quick the world has turned.

 

[Manifesto]

DRADIS , yes this is not just an attacking game. Your commentary for wars is valid but this was, and still is, mostly a MP game.
The majority of people log on for the majority of the time to make mp battles.
ie: we log on to ATTACK.
There, Dominations in one sentence.

 

[skychan]

I agree, a good defender is a good thing. However I disagree that it is a defensive game. I spend my time while playing on the attack. I may spend a few hours here and there thinking about defense, refining defenses, and more, but that time pales in comparison to how much time I spend attacking. If I spend say, 24 hours working on defense in an age, I'm going to spend at least 10x that amount actually attacking during that age, and the ratio only gets worse the higher up we go.